Case study: a complex dispute over property, trust, and evidence - Hevedi v Hevedi [2025] EWHC 1976 (Ch)

Background 

In this High Court judgment, Master McQuail considered a dispute between Chia Hevedi (“the Claimant”) and his former partner Havin Hevedi (“the Defendant”), following the breakdown of their long-term relationship. 

Though never married, the couple were in a relationship from approximately 2010 until their acrimonious separation in 2021. During their relationship they shared two children, a home, and various business interests. After their separation in 2021, the Claimant brought legal proceedings seeking declarations that he was the true beneficial owner of two properties in Sheffield known as (1) 53 East Road and (2) 3 Endcliffe Grove Avenue (collectively referred to as “the Properties”) as well as a Turkish bank account which was allegedly holding millions in trust for him.

Initially, the Claimant also sought £6 million in damages for alleged misappropriation of funds but the Claimant decided not to pursue this sum ahead of trial.

The Claim

The Claimant argued that the Defendant had agreed to hold certain assets in trust for him while he dealt with financial difficulties, including bankruptcy and an HMRC investigation. He argued that the Properties and the Turkish bank account were registered in the Defendant’s name purely as a protective measure, and that they were always intended to be returned to him once his financial situation improved.

He relied on statutory declarations signed by the Defendant in 2023, which stated that the Properties were purchased with his money and held on trust for him. He also claimed to have spent large sums refurbishing the Properties, which he said demonstrated he had a beneficial interest.

The legal position in respect of constructive trusts

In order to demonstrate the existence of a constructive trust, the following key elements must be satisfied:

• The existence of a common intention that the claimant would have a beneficial interest in the property and;

• The claimant acted to their detriment in reliance of that intention. 

The common intention can be expressed or inferred from the conduct of the parties. Detrimental conduct typically involves direct financial contributions towards the purchase price or mortgage payments but may also include other significant contributions such as renovation work.

The court will usually consider the broader context, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, discussions and agreements at the time, and the overall course of dealing between the parties. 

The Court’s analysis

The Court found in this claim that the Claimant’s evidence was  inconsistent and unreliable. His account of events shifted during the trial, and he was unable to clearly identify when any trust agreement had been made. Although the Claimant referred to a specific conversation he had had with the Defendant in 2013, this conflicted with other parts of his testimony which instead suggested the arrangement was made in 2021. The judge noted that the Claimant’s narrative appeared to have been constructed to support his legal position rather than reflect a consistent and credible account of events.

The Court also examined whether the Claimant had acted in detrimental reliance on any agreement which is a key requirement for establishing a constructive trust, as set out above. While the Claimant claimed to have spent large sums refurbishing the Properties, the evidence presented to the Court in support was sparse and poorly documented. The Claimant only produced one invoice for £31,000 and the source of the funds remained unclear. The judge therefore concluded that the Claimant had not demonstrated sufficient detrimental reliance to support his claim for a constructive trust.

The Turkish bank account

Separately, the Claimant alleged that the Defendant held a Turkish bank account in trust for him, containing funds from his businesses. However, the account was found to belong to a Turkish company, not the Defendant personally, and the Claimant failed to provide clear evidence of ownership or the origin of the funds. As a result, the Court also declined to make any declaration in relation to the account.

Statutory declarations and their impact

Lastly, the statutory declarations signed by the Defendant in 2023 played a key role in the case. 

The Court accepted the declaration concerning 3 Endcliffe Grove Avenue was valid and effective from the date it was signed and made a declaration that the Claimant had been the sole beneficial owner of that property since 11 August 2023.

However, the declaration for 53 East Road was signed after the property had already been sold, rendering it legally ineffective. The Court held that statutory declarations cannot have a retrospective effect unless supported by earlier evidence of a trust arrangement, which was not present in this case.

Key lessons from the case

This judgment highlights the importance of formalising financial arrangements, especially when significant assets are involved. Whilst most individuals will not foresee a dispute arising in the future, in the event that one does arise, the Court will usually rely on the evidence presented before it, in order to make a decision. As such, any agreement should usually be in writing rather than verbal and any personal funds invested and/or spent should be documented by way of evidence (i.e. debit withdrawals from bank statements, receipts and invoices for works paid for, for example). 

Informal agreements and undocumented cash transactions carry substantial legal risk. Courts require clear, consistent evidence to support claims of beneficial ownership, and will scrutinise such claims rigorously.

For legal professionals and clients alike, Hevedi v Hevedi serves as a reminder that trust claims are complicated and no case is the same. In order to pursue such claims, they will need to be supported by credible documentation which can be relied upon. Separately, whilst statutory declarations can be effective and useful, they are not a substitute for a well-evidenced case.